Allowed

Sojab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Jan 2024/68/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant Sojab, who was involved in a murder case involving hatching a conspiracy. The court granted bail citing parity with co-accused who were already on bail and noting the applicant had no criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions regarding tampering with evidence and presence in court.

Sojab Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:8261

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 68 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sojab

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Suraj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Dixit

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per statement of the independent witness specific role of firing is assigend to Ayan. The co-accused Atiq and Lique have been assigned the role of exhortion. Role assigned to the applicant in the statement of the independent witness is of hatching conspiracy.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused persons Mansoore, Jameel, Saleem and Mohammad Kaleem have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 18.01.2024 and 23.01.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application Nos. 14630 of 2023, 821 of 2024, 14138 of 2023 and 14829 of 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the bail order of the aforesaid co-accused persons.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that the co-accused Mansoore, Jameel, Saleem and Mohammad Kaleem have been enlarged on bail as well as considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2023 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant, Sojab, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 263/2023, under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Khairabad, District - Sitapur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.1.2024 R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sojab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sojab v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Budhana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Balak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Poonam Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow

Raees Ahmad @ Dabbu and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Rajendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.